Hi Ben, Yes I agree, caching whole chunks of data that are computing intense to render and that change only now and then would certainly be worth caching. And that has to be done on the application level.
On Nov 17, 3:15 pm, Ben Nevile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Anders, > > In my experience with standard RMDBS, memcache is more useful for > caching arbitrary data and less useful for caching model objects. If > you have a really tuned database layer a lot of your queries will > already be resident in the database's cache, and memcache provides > only a modest efficiency gain. With GAE that seems to be less true - > in one of my apps, caching my User model reduced response time by > about 150ms. > > However, where I have found memcache most valuable is in caching more > arbitrary data constructs. Caching fragments of your rendered HTML, > for instance, can be really effective. Or perhaps there's a big chunk > of JSON that is often requested, but really only needs to be updated > once a minute. Removing the memcache API would be really really > unfortunate. > > re: whether or not you should implement it, I would say NO. until you > have a whole whack of users, concentrate on more important things. > > Ben > > On Nov 17, 12:26 am, Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Yes, removing Memcache from the GAE API is probably not a good idea. > > There must have been some reason why it was added. > > > What I'm skeptic about is if it will be a good idea for me to use it > > or if I will only be doing something unnecessary or even worse, > > shooting myself in the foot if the Memcache does not scale well and if > > my site will start to get massive traffic (my application still has > > very low traffic but I want to be prepared for the eventuality of an > > exponential traffic increase :-). > > > On Nov 17, 9:13 am, Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I don't know if this means that each server instance has its own > > > > Memcache or that all the instances access a single Memcache. > > > > All instances access the "same" memcache - although this may be > > > distributed behind the scenes, I don't know about that. > > > > I agree with you that it would be elegant to have automatic caching, > > > but that would impose some limitations - currently you can memcache > > > anything (including complex objects), but you can only store limited > > > data types in the datastore; and you can do (limited) querys on the > > > datastore but not on memcache. > > > > Ideally we'd have a transparently cached queryable object store to > > > replace the datastore and memcache, but I guess this would be a > > > significant amount of development. Maybe Google should hire the Zope > > > guys to build it. > > > > Cheers! > > > Greg. > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
